3. Consider a team-developed purpose statement.
This idea may sound pass?© to some, but consider creating a mission/purpose statement for your team. A true purpose statement helps define what the team’s objectives are and how they will be carried out. The more specific the purpose statement is, the better off the team will be in moving from a group of agendas to one central agenda.
The purpose statement can be an invaluable tool when conflict arises. One worship design team Len worked with experienced this first hand. Taking the assignment of a joint purpose statement seriously, they spent portions of their first six meetings together formulating a series of statements. Once they all signed the document, the team’s scribe posted it with a piece of scotch tape on the meeting room’s wall. A few months later, the team found itself in the middle of a serious disagreement. After extensive and heated debate, one of the team’s members reached over to the original document, pulled it from the wall and calmly began to read its contents. The solution to the disagreement was contained in the already discussed purpose.
As stated in the opening quiz, all teams have either a) experienced conflict b) are currently experiencing conflict or c) will experience conflict. There’s just no getting around it: conflict is an inevitable part of working with other people. In fact, a group of individuals doesn’t really move toward becoming a team until they’ve weathered their first conflict together. If a purpose statement is given proper attention when it’s written and is signed by every member with no reservations, it becomes a roadmap for dealing with any situation that may arise.
Purpose statements should be written over the course of several meetings. They should be as specific as possible. Each and every person on the team should be a part of writing the statement, and should be able to sign their name to it when completed.
A word of warning: conflict may arise even as a purpose statement is written. Use the conflict to help define what the goals of the team are.
4. Joint ownership, not best friends
When teams successfully move from individual agendas to a single agenda, and discover the possibilities of consensus, many wonderful things happen. Brainstorming becomes less tense, friendship and mutual respect grows, and joint ownership over the process is felt. Joint ownership makes the individuals feel more like a team. A general excitement begins to accompany the process when everyone feels like they’re a part of what is being achieved.
This doesn’t mean that everyone on the team is the closest of friends. As stated, personal styles and preferences may vary. It does mean that the team operates out of mutual respect and agreement that the decisions being made are the best ideas for worship in its own unique time and space.
5. “We” not “I” language
One important change to make is in the language used to describe the process. “We” becomes a very important word. Since the creative process is pretty messy, it’s often hard to remember who said what when. One might have spawned ideas that come from another. Keeping track of who thought of what is an egocentric minefield that is sure to destroy the team.
This is where “we” becomes so important. Walking out of a team meeting and using the word “I” to talk about certain aspects of the design process can do a lot of damage to others on the team. Nearly every idea that is implemented from a design team meeting is underpinned by other unused brainstorms. That makes the “final” idea something that was jointly achieved.
In our own ministry at Midnight Oil, we have trained ourselves to say “we” when talking about our work even if there is a clear distinction in our own minds as to which one of us implemented any given idea. We’ve learned that one can lose a lot by saying “I” but we can’t lose anything at all by saying “we.” In fact, we can gain a lot by saying “we” when team is involved.
There is power in the Body of Christ. We can do so much more together than we can alone. For the sake of the world, we must function as the body if we want to make disciples of Jesus. It’s time to throw out our egos, and learn to make decisions as a team.





The MO Guys said,
Wrote on May 16, 2007 @ 9:57 am
What do you think? Leave a message if you have something to say about this article. No registration is required to post a comment, but we will moderate for spam and obscene language, so your comment will be delayed in posting until we clear it.
Gene said,
Wrote on May 16, 2007 @ 12:23 pm
Good stuff, as usual.
I know a purpose statement is by definition a custom thing for each team, but can you share one or more of the ones from teams you’ve been part of? It’s easy enough to come up with a single statement describing what the team will do, but 5 or 6 statements including how to deal with conflicts is trickier, so having an example or two to use as a launching point would be helpful.
The MO Guys said,
Wrote on May 18, 2007 @ 2:34 pm
Gene,
Good question. In fact, thinking about it gave me some flesh for what is going to be a separate chapter in the book on defining dreams, purposes and goals for worship. This of course is something the team should do together. As a start, I could identfy that there needs to be consensus on a) basic philosophy of worship (adoration, community, discipleship, and/or outreach), b) methodology, and c) style. This is a good start. Once a team has worked through this stuff, then a comflict over whether a particular song is appropriate for worship becomes a non-issue, because you’ve already taken time to work through these issues. Much better to do it ahead of time before people get emotionally attached to particular creative ideas.
PDA said,
Wrote on July 12, 2007 @ 3:17 pm
Thanks for addressing these questions…we’re changing our creative team structure, but I’m concerned about the size of the creative team I was considering after having read your article! I was operating under the impression that my main “implementers’ (heads of worship, drama, video, etc teams) be present. But that exceeds 7 people right there. And I’m finding these folks to be great implementers but not hugely creaive. I’d love to add 2 or 3 creative thinkers to the mix. Now we’re talking 10 people…which may be too many to be effective. Any thoughts on this?
The MO Guys said,
Wrote on July 13, 2007 @ 10:00 am
Hi PDA,
I would definitely add the creative people to the mix, even if you have to deal with the extra bodies. Try to ensure that these people have a function outside of the meeting, though. Not just to create ideas for other people to do, but things they will do themselves. Then you can whittle down from 10 to 7 over time. Sometimes mutual discernment occurs and people realize as the team grows that they don’t need to be on it.
Two more articles on our site that may help you. One is on team size:
http://www.midnightoilproductions.com/reading/team-building/team-size/
And the other on team roles:
http://www.midnightoilproductions.com/reading/team-building/assigning-roles/
Maybe focus on these things foremost and then return to the organizational hierarchy. In other words, if you didn’t have political ramifications, what would be your dream setup? Start there, identify if, and then come back to the current reality. This method might help you to identify the points of conflict that need resolving.